Talk:Markovian Parallax Denigrate

This is new stuff!

Needs major edits, we have concrete evidence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vboQOQwifwg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leepic11a (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Great, so a youtube video was posted by someone, and now a bunch of activists will be here to insert original research and POV. Thanks for the heads up. ♟♙ (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Daily Dot Article reference says opposite of page.

So, just curious, but has anyone actually read the Daily Dot article about this? It clearly states that Susan Lindauer, the ex-spy, was not actually associated with the email address used. Hell, it even goes on to explain that it was originally owned by a student at a university who had their account stolen. Hell, the article even surmises in conclusion, that it most likely was a Spam attack. (Which it was, since a quick search of UseNet for stuff from the very next day confirms this.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:4C00:74C5:7524:72E2:A306:20A5 (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to practice your reading comprehension. Nothing the article currently says conflicts with the source. ♟♙ (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

To quote the acutal article: "And besides, there’s another Susan Linduaer out there, someone whose email address was clearly used by whoever created the Markovian Parallax Denigrate spam.

There are so many articles about the Susan Lindauer who was arrested in 2004 that finding this other Susan takes some creative Googling. But it’s not that hard. Just start with that original Markovian Parallax Denigrate email address, susan_lindauer@worf.uwsp.edu.

UWSP stands for the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point. And it turns out there was actually a Susan Lindauer who attended UWSP as a graduate student in physical education. She graduated in 1994. I called up her former faculty advisor at UWSP, professor Rory Suomi, with whom she published at least two papers bearing titles like “Impact of Arthritis Foundation Aquatic Program Classes on Strength and Range of Motion Measures in Women with Arthritis.”

Though he wasn’t helpful in tracking her down, Suomi did confirm that this Lindauer was very much a real person. That means she attended UWSP at around the same time the other Susan Lindauer was living in Washington, D.C. and making trips to the Libyan Mission in New York.

Ultimately, finding this Susan was as simple as changing her name and searching Facebook. She prefers “Susie” and switched her last name to Mursau after getting married.

Mursau lives in Combined Lakes, Wis., and works in the local school district. According to her Facebook profile, she likes the Green Bay Packers, Chris Farley, and the MTV series The Hills. When I reached her by phone Friday morning and asked if she knew anything about the Markovian Parallax Denigrate email, she told me, “I’ve never heard of it.” And she certainly didn’t send it. (Nor had she heard of the other Susan Lindauer: “I’ve never Googled myself,” she said.)

So unless Mursau is purposefully hiding her past as a Usenet spammer (which seems unlikely, to put it mildly), she didn’t send the email that launched one of the weirdest mysteries in Internet history. More likely: Someone scraped her address along with the dozens of other academic emails used in the Markovian Parallax Denigrate messages, then used them to mask the actual address. It’s easy."

Personally i think that you don't need very good reading comprehension skills to understand the actual message that this article coveyed. Probablybrynte (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The article says what the source says. ♟♙ (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Youtube video

Just a heads up to editors and pagewatchers, a youtube video about this subject (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vboQOQwifwg) was released and it quite rightly pointed out glaring issues in this article and how those issues likely contributed to a stream of misinformation. I've removed that content. Any content added back that was removed should be discussed first as its clear the ill advised previous claims very well could have unnecessarily disparaged someone. People should also beware of random edits or an influx of ip edit requests coming in and page protection may be needed until the popularity of the video subsides. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah well if you watched the same video I just watched, it makes it clear that the article - as it was - in September 2019 was factually correct. But that was all deleted by the deletionist user called User:EnPassant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.33.113 (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Youtube videos aren't reliable sources. And the article doesn't conflict with the sources. Edits reverted. ♟♙ (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning User:EnPassant, not only do you not actually bother to check what you are deleting but you've also proved yourself to be very creepy. Not only did you not even watch the video? Simply dismissing it with a "Youtube videos aren't reliable sources". You also have the paranoid response to claim I am someone who I am not. Everything I said was based on the video; it shows the actual newsgroups where the info from these postings were added. You can still search for it using Google Groups! So please don't spout the old Wikipedia:Assume good faith line at me. Your own editing history proves you assume none. All I did was watch a video today that gave clarity in areas that this article lacks (in fact the video makes clear that the looping veracity of other published material is derived from this article). I also mentioned that the article contained more clarity until you showed up and deleted (you have even edited the lies back into the article - so what's your angle in all of this?). Then - as a typical paranoid socially backward wikipedia editor - you accuse me of being this earlier editor User:MattiasThatch. All because they are shown in the video. I just checked the article's edit history, which matches, balanced that against the video showing the search in Google Groups to the very same archived Usernet posts. And it's all there, it's all factually correct:

Etymology

The name "Markovian Parallax Denigrate" comes from a message posted on alt.religion.christian.boston-church by Usenet User Chris Brokerage (Likely a pseudonym) from the partially obfuscated email address "Susan_L...@WORF.UWSP.EDU" which appears to have originated at University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, however the majority of posts use randomly assembled names and addresses in order to obscure the source of the messages.

Newsgroups Affected

At least a few dozen examples of Markovian Parallax Denigrate text exist and are available to view on Google Groups, Google's archive of Usenet newsgroup posts. The following newsgroups were affected by the Markovian Parallax Denigrate spam:

• alt.religion.christian
• alt.religion.christian.boston-church
• misc.education.homeschool.christian
• pdaxs.religion.christian
• rec.music.christian
• uk.religion.christian
• news.admin.net-abuse.misc

The general consensus of contemporary users of these newsgroups was that the posts were in fact a "Mailbox Attack" or "Letterbomb", which can be loosely defined as an early DDoS attack, wherein a user sends spam text to a newsgroup causing ISPs to meter or throttle the connections of affected users due to high bandwidth usage. Each message to one of these newsgroups would be automatically downloaded to a newsgroup member's computer, so high quantities of messages would, in turn, equal high bandwidth usage for all newsgroup users.

This is information that you deemed to be false. You don't Wikipedia:Assume good faith? You've reinstated lies. You're the problem here. But sadly to be accused of not showing good faith is a light on you, EnPassant, not me! 81.141.33.113 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Youtube videos do not satisfy the requirements of WP:RS and everything else you posted above is WP:OR. ♟♙ (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Novil Ariandis: is your edit the result of this aforementioned video? Veverve (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: how long should the editing of the article be restricted to extended confirmed users?

No need for this anymore
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Due to a recent popular Youtube video, in which this WP article and history are named (mainly at 7:48 and 15:10), an influx of editors came to edit the page with WP:OR. Those wanting to know the overall narrative of the video can read the GAB of a user who came to WP only to edit this article. An admin recently blocked all non-extended confirmed users from editiong the page. However, the question remains as to how long this restriction should last. Veverve (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC) I'm tempted to put an early close on this. No responses in two weeks, probably because this generally doesn't need an RFC. This is routinely handled by admin discretion. If there is any further trouble just contact the admin that protected it before, or make a request at WP:RFPP. It looks like activity on the Youtube video has mostly tapered off, hopefully that's the end of it. Alsee (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC) @Alsee: I guess you wanted to close this RfC but forgot to do so. Veverve (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Why was my edit removed?

Hey I published the edit of this page in September 2019 regarding the history and etymology of this topic, I went indepth on researching this for this article and double checked to confirm that what I was submitting was correct, I dug through Usenet for hours reading through posts and forums to see what the people at the time thought about it and what groups were affected, as far as i can tell, all of it was correct? Can i get an answer as to why why EnPassant removed my edits? I haven't been on Wikipedia in ages so I didn't notice that it'd been modified but I didn't go off the video you referenced in that earlier talk post, all my research was my own. Just to point out I studied it before the video existed as well? Can other editors confirm that my research wasn't incorrect? If i was wrong in what i submitted i am happy to correct myself but what i posted was to my knowledge 100% correct. My Edit in Sep 2019

Also, how am i meant to source this when there, at the time, was zero published articles that properly analyze this event? (Should I have linked the Usenet posts themselves?) While at the same time, some of the "Facts" on the article at the time were also incorrect however referenced sources which were themselves hazily researched at best? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattiasThatch (talk • contribs) 14:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your talk page posts. Usenet isn't a reliable source, so you can't use usenet posts as sources. For reliable source requirements please read WP:RS. And WP:OR isn't allowed. Please review the edit history as there's an edit summary that explains why your changes were reverted. ♟♙ (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Eh, don't waste your time. Keep people hunting around for a conspiracy to explain it when the obvious answer is in plain sight.